Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

77
Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture’s impact) Handout for presentations by Paul Mahony in Melbourne, Australia on various dates during 2011 as at 16 th June 2011 (Please print double-sided if possible) Solar Or Soy

Transcript of Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Page 1: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Which is better for the planet?(A review of animal agriculture’s impact)

Handout for presentations by Paul Mahony in Melbourne, Australiaon various dates during 2011 as at 16th June 2011

(Please print double-sided if possible)

SolarOr Soy

Page 2: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

versus versus

Solar Or Soy

To the extent that solar power represents an alternative to coal, it is critical.

To the extent that soy represents an alternative to animal agriculture, it is also critical.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 3: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Key messages - General

Human activity is having a massive impact

Climate change is real

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 4: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Key messages – Livestock

Scale

Inherent inefficiency

Greenhouse gases and other warming agents

Deforestation

Nutrition

Also . . .

Water

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 5: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

. . . it has to be part of the main gameP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 6: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Some terms

CO2-e: Carbon dioxide equivalent (see next slide)

GHG: Greenhouse gas

GWP: Global warming potential (see next slide)

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 7: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Some terms (cont.)

CO2-e and GWP:

• The emissions of different gases can be aggregated by converting them to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e). It is like a common denomination for greenhouse gases.

• They are converted by multiplying the mass of emissions by the appropriate global warming potentials (GWPs).

• GWPs represent the relative warming effect of a unit mass of the gas when compared with the same mass of CO2 over a specific period.

• For methane, the GWPs used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are 21 for 100 years and 72 for 20 years.

• The UN Food & Agriculture Organization used a GWP of 23 for the 100 year time horizon in its 2006 “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 8: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?Brisbane, Australia, January 2011

40 knots?

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 9: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

GeneralIt's real

Human impact

Dr James Hansen, Director, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA interviewed on Late Night Live, ABC Radio National (Australia), 8th March, 2010 and replayed 8th July, 2010.

• There’s no disagreement about the physics of radiative transfer and the fact

that adding infra red absorbing gases to the atmosphere is going to make the

atmosphere more opaque in the thermal spectrum, in the long waves.

• That will reduce heat radiation to space and if you reduce the radiation to space, given the fact that the amount of energy

coming from the sun is unchanged, then you have to warm up the planet.

• You’ve got an energy imbalance and until the planet warms up enough to radiate that energy away, it’s going to continue to get warmer.

• So the basic physics is very hard to dispute.

Some of the fundamental scienceP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 10: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

GHGs, sea levels and temperatureSee next slide for more detailed image

Sources: Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and

Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008. (This presenter has inserted the various overlays.)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf and Hansen, J., “Storms of my grandchildren”, 2009, Bloomsbury

GeneralIt's real

Human impact

• Ice core data show that during the period of 425,000 years before the industrial revolution, there was a close correlation betweenatmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), temperature and sea level.

• In 1960, CO2 concentrations were around 315 ppm, so they have increased 75 ppm (24%) in 50 years.

• Prior to the start of the industrial revolution in around 1750, CO2 concentrations were approximately 280 ppm.

• For the period of human civilization before 1750 (around 10,000 years), CO2 concentrations, temperature and sea level were relatively stable.

390

300

• In less than 100 years, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased to around 390 ppm, after never exceeding 300 ppm in the previous 1,000,000 years.

0

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 11: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

GHGs, sea levels and temperature

Sources: Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and

Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008. (This presenter has inserted the various overlays.)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf and Hansen, J., “Storms of my grandchildren”, 2009, Bloomsbury

General

390

300

1750

It's real

Human impact

Note the correlation

between CO2

concentrations,

temperature and

sea level over a period of 425,000

years.

During that period

(and during the past million

years), except

during the past

100 years, the

atmospheric concentration of

CO2 has not

exceeded 300 ppm. It has

increased from around 315 ppm

in 1960 to around

390 ppm in 2011.

The shaded circles

incorporate the

10,000 years of

human civilization, during which

conditions have

been relatively

stable.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations

were 280 ppm in

1750, before the

industrial revolution.

Previous slide contains a simpler version.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 12: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: Adapted from CSIRO, “The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers”, Fig. 4.1, p. 10

General

Atmospheric CO2 over the past 2,000 years

It's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 13: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: Adapted from CSIRO, “The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers”, Fig. 4.1, p. 10

General

Atmospheric CO2 over the past 2,000 years

It's real

Human impact

Are we in serious trouble?

You bet!

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 14: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: CSIRO, “The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers”, Fig. 3.3, p. 8

General

Record number of hot and cold days in Australia since 1960

It's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 15: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: Water Corporation, WA “Impact on Water Availability – WA Reduced Inflow to Dams”,

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_streamflow_large.cfm (Overlays have been inserted by this presenter.)

General

Inflow to dams - WA

1911-1974: 338 GL p.a.

2010: 6 GL

It's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 16: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: Munich Re, “Topics GEO.

Natural Catastrophes 2010:

Analyses, Assessments, Positions”

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 17: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: Munich Re, “Topics GEO.

Natural Catastrophes 2010:

Analyses, Assessments, Positions”

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 18: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: Munich Re, “Climate

Change and Impacts”

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 19: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

What about risk management?

Likelihood: The planet is warming rapidly, with at least 90 per cent certainty that this is primarily due to human activities. (IPCC 4th assessment report, 2007)

General

Consequences: Catastrophic

RISK RATING: EXTREME!

WOULD AN ORGANISATION, FACED WITH A RISK OF THIS MAGNITUDE, TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION OR WOULD IT STALL WHILE BOARD MEMBERS DEBATED?

It's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 20: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

The need is urgent!

David Spratt, co-author of “Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action”

on the edge of a precipice . . .

“ . . . the world stands . . .

beyond which human actions will no longer be able to control in any meaningful way the trajectory of the climate system . . .”

Source: “Global Warming – No more business as usual: This is an emergency!”, Environmental Activists’Conference ’08: Climate Emergency – No More Business as Usual, 10 October, 2008, reproduced in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, http://links.org.au/node/683

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 21: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

The need is urgent!

• British glaciologists have recorded water pouring down one of hundreds (possibly thousands) of moulins (craters) on Greenland's 2km thick ice

cap at an estimated rate of 42 million litres per day.

Sources: The Telegraph, 20th Feb 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4734859/Scientists-capture-dramatic-

footage-of-Arctic-glaciers-melting-in-hours.html

Hansen, J., “Storms of my grandchildren”, 2009, Bloomsbury, p. 287. (An alternative figure had been

shown on p. 255 but the correct figure has been confirmed as 250 cubic km.)

GeneralIt's real

Human impact

• James Hansen of NASA says Greenland's ice cap is now losing more than 250 cubic km of ice per year.

• As recently as the 1990's the ice cap was neither losing nor gaining mass at a substantial rate.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 22: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Source: Munich Re, “Weather

catastrophes and climate change: is

there still hope for us?”, 2005

“Natural climate change is inseparably linked to the history of the earth and its development.

Human activity has had a massive impact on the climate system over the past one hundred years - a unique experiment with an indefinite outcome.”

Munich Re, 2005

A sign of the times?

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 23: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

A sign of the times?

Source: IPCC 2007: WG1-AR4, cited in Munich Re, “Climate Change and Impacts”

GeneralIt's real

Human impactP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 24: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Livestock

“A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.”

The Guardian, 2nd June 2010

“A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”

United Nations Environment Programme, June 2010

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Henning Steinfeld, United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization,

2006 (Co-author of the UN FAO’s “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report)

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 25: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Inherent inefficiencies

LivestockInefficiency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

Derived from W.O. Herring and J.K. Bertrand, “Multi-trait Prediction of Feed Conversion in Feedlot Cattle”, Proceedings from the 34th Annual Beef

Improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Omaha, NE, July 10-13, 2002, www.bifconference.com/bif2002/BIFsymposium_pdfs/Herring_02BIF.pdf, cited in Singer, P & Mason, J, “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Text Publishing

Company, p. 210Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 26: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Inherent inefficiencies

Derived from W.O. Herring and J.K. Bertrand, “Multi-trait Prediction of Feed Conversion in Feedlot Cattle”, Proceedings from the 34th Annual Beef

Improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Omaha, NE, July 10-13, 2002, www.bifconference.com/bif2002/BIFsymposium_pdfs/Herring_02BIF.pdf, cited in Singer, P & Mason, J, “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Text Publishing

Company, p. 210

LivestockInefficiency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 27: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Inherent inefficiencies

Derived from W.O. Herring and J.K. Bertrand, “Multi-trait Prediction of Feed Conversion in Feedlot Cattle”, Proceedings from the 34th Annual Beef

Improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Omaha, NE, July 10-13, 2002, www.bifconference.com/bif2002/BIFsymposium_pdfs/Herring_02BIF.pdf, cited in Singer, P & Mason, J, “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Text Publishing

Company, p. 210

• fugitive methane emissions from

fertilizer production (using natural gas);

• land clearing, with release of CO2 and loss of sequestration;

• nitrogen based fertilizer producing nitrous oxide (300 times as potent as CO2);

• water used and polluted, including oceanic dead zones from nitrogen run-off.

• emissions from farming and transportation;

• pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics;

LivestockInefficiency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

Nutrition via animals involves more:

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 28: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Inherent inefficiencies

Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/agriculture (accessed 3 July 2008)

• water used and polluted

LivestockInefficiency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

The grazing of around 4.5 million cattle in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment

has caused widespread soil erosion, resulting in sediments, fertilizers and

pesticides entering the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Nutrition via animals involves more:

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 29: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Appropriation of Earth’s annual plant growth (net primary productivity or NPP)Food for livestock

58%

Food for humans

12%

Other30%

Humans’ calorie (energy) intake

83% direct from plants

17% from livestock

Sources: Derived from Fridolin Krausmann, et al “Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints” and Helmut Haberl, et al “Quantifying and

mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems”, cited in Russell, G. “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 1)”, www.bravenewclimate.com

Livestock

Inherent inefficiencies

Inefficiency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 30: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

• At present, the US livestock population consumes more than 7 times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.

US Department of Agriculture, 2001. Agricultural statistics. Washington, DC

• The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet”

Dr David Pimentel, Cornell University “Livestock production and energy use”, Cleveland CJ, ed. Encyclopedia of energy (in press). [Cited 2003]

The above references were cited in Pimentel, D. & Pimentel M. “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 660S-663S,

September 2003

Livestock

Inherent inefficiencies

Inefficiency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 31: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

“In the United States, more than 9 billion livestock are maintained to supply the animal protein consumed each year.”

US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural statistics, 2001

The above reference was cited in Pimentel, D. & Pimentel M. “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 660S-663S, September

2003

Livestock

Scale

Ineff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 32: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Source: Chart - UN FAO cited in Earth Policy Institute book_wote_ch3_13.xls, http://www.earth-policy.orgOther figures – FAOSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx,Biomass – Geoff Russell “Burning the biosphere – Boverty Blues Pt. 1”, www.bravenewclimate.com

Livestock/wildlife ratio – UN Food & Agriculture Organization “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, 2006

Cattle, sheep and goat population in 2006 3.3 billion:

Billions slaughtered in 2009:

• Chickens 51.5

• Other 7.8

Total 59.3

• Plus laying hens 6.5

• Plus milk providers 0.7

Livestock biomass is 700 million tonnes compared to human biomass

335 million tonnes.

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

3,600

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: FAO; UNPopM

illi

on

In

div

idu

als

Livestock/wildlife ratio 23:3

10,000 years ago, all animals

were wildlife.

Scale LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 33: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Source: Chart - UN FAO cited in Earth Policy Institute book_wote_ch3_13.xls, http://www.earth-policy.orgOther figures – ABS 1301.0 Year Book Australia 2009-10

Australia 2008

45 million cows, sheep & pigs

475 million chickens

19 million other fowls,

turkeys, ducks and drakes

Population:

26.3 million cows

76.9 million sheep

2.4 million pigs

Killed for human consumption:

LivestockScaleIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 34: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

CO2-e emissions from livestock

20-year “Global Warming Potential” (GWP)

100 yrs

GWP of methane over 100 years is 21.

20 yrs

GWP of methane over 20 years is 72.

12 yrs

Most of the methane breaks down within 12 years and is therefore non-existent over the final 88 years.

This more accurately reflects its shorter-term impact.

Most CO2-e measures of methane are based on a period of 100 years.

Livestock

Short-term impacts become long-term if they contribute to us reaching tipping points.

Ineff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 35: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

LivestockSome context for beef: Aluminium

Ineff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Based on conservative 100 year GWP

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 36: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Sources: Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 40; Turton, H. “The Aluminium

Smelting Industry Structure, market power, subsidies and greenhouse gas emissions”, The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper

Number 44, January 2002, ISSN 1322-5421, p. ix; Turton, H. “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries Where does

Australia stand?”, The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper Number 66, June 2004, ISSN 1322-5421, p. viii.

Some context for beef: AluminiumLivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

� 16% of Australia’s electricity but provides only 0.06% of jobs and 0.23% of GDP.

� 2.5 times the world average of GHGs per tonne of product.

Based on conservative 100 year GWP

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 37: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

“To phrase it in terms of the industry joke, aluminium is congealed electricity.”

Mining Weekly.com

Source: Campbell, K., "Energy crunch constraining aluminium expansions”, 27 February, 2006, www.miningweekly.com,

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/energy-crunch-constraining-aluminum-expansions-2006-02-27

Some context for beef: AluminiumLivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Based on conservative 100 year GWP

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 38: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

“Aluminium is the ultimate proxy for energy”

Marius Kloppers, BHP Billiton CEO

Source: Campbell, K., "Energy crunch constraining aluminium expansions”, 27 February, 2006, www.miningweekly.com,

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/energy-crunch-constraining-aluminum-expansions-2006-02-27

Some context for beef: AluminiumLivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Based on conservative 100 year GWP

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 39: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

So how does beef compare?

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 40: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

GHG Emissions Intensity (kg of GHG per kg of product)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wheat Other

grains

Sugar Cement,lime, etc

Steel Alumin-

ium

Other non-

ferrousWool Sheep

meat

Beef

George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse

Office, 2003, Volume 1, Table S5, p. vii

This chart is about

emissions intensity.

Things get even worse when you realise that we produce 10% more beef than aluminium.

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Based on conservative 100 year GWPP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 41: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

GHG Emissions - Absolute

George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003, Volume 1, Table S5, p. vii

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Based on conservative 100 year GWPP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 42: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

What about coal-fired electricity?

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 43: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Total CO2-e emissions from electricity generation by fossil fuels

Source: Dept of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, National Greenhouse Inventory 2008, Fig 7, p. 8.

Coal180mt approx.

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 44: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

CO2-e emissions from Australian livestock

Adding emissions from livestock-related deforestation and savanna-burning increases livestock’s emissions to 106mt or 17.8% of the revised total.

The figure of 59mt represents 10.7% of Australia’s total emissions of 549mt.

It is based solely on enteric fermentation and manure management.

59 mt approx.

Source:

- Dept of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency, National Greenhouse Inventory 2008, Fig. 15, p. 15

- Livestock’s share of deforestation and savanna burning derived from George Wilkenfeld & Associates

Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use

Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003

Using a 20-year GWP, the final percentage increases to 29.6%.

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 45: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

CO2-e emissions from Australian livestock

Source: The University of Sydney and CSIRO, 2005, “Balancing Act – A Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the Australian Economy”

If we were to consider end-use, the percentage would be 30.64%.

30.64%

69.36%

Animal Agriculture

Other

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Based on conservative 100 year GWP

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 46: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

CO2-e emissions from livestock globally

82%

18%

Animal Agriculture

Other

United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, 2006

49% 51.00%Animal Agriculture

Other

World Watch Institute, 2009

- 20 year GWP on methane

- Foregone sequestration on land previously cleared*

- Livestock respiration overwhelming photosynthesis in absorbing carbon

- Increased livestock production since 2002

- Corrections in documented under-counting

- More up to date emissions figures

- Corrections for use of Minnesota for source data

- Re-alignment of sectoral information

- Fluorocarbons for extended refrigeration

- Cooking at higher temperature and for longer periods

- Disposal of waste

- Production, distribution and disposal of by-products and packaging

- Carbon-intensive medical treatment of livestock-related illness

* Foregone sequestration still not fully accounted for.

World Watch Institute, 2009 (amended)

- As above but amended (by this presenter) by removing livestock respiration as a factor

Source of World Watch material: Goodland, R & Anhang, J, “Livestock and Climate Change - What if the key actors in climate change are cows,

pigs, and chickens?”, World Watch, Nov/Dec, 2009, pp 10-19. (Note: Robert Goodland was formerly lead environmental adviser at the World

Bank. Jeff Anhang is a research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation.)

57%

43% Animal Agriculture

Other

Livestock

- Significantly more than all the world’s transport

- Excludes factors considered by the World Watch Institute (refer below)

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 47: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Comparison with electricity generation in Australiaallowing for livestock-related deforestation and savanna burning

GHG emissions from Australia’s LIVESTOCK are equivalent to:

1.7 times

Victoria

6.8 timesHazelwood

53% of total; and 60% of coal-fired

Based on conservative 100 year GWP

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 48: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Comparison with electricity generation in Australia - NotesP

aul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 49: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Annual CO2-e emissions from National Greenhouse Inventory 2008

Coal-fired power Methane from livestock

216 mt180 mt

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

180 mt 59 mt

Source: Dept of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency, National Greenhouse Inventory 2008

Livestock

Based on conservative 100 year GWP and excluding deforestation and savanna burning

Ineff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 50: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Annual CO2-e emissions from National Greenhouse Inventory 2008

Coal-fired power Methane from livestock

216 mt180 mt

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

180 mt 216 mt

Source: Brook, Prof. Barry and Russell, Geoff, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”, Australasian Science, Nov/Dec 2007, pp. 37-39, http://www.control.com.au/bi2007/2810Brook.pdf (accessed 27 June, 2010)

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Amended for 20 year GWP but still excluding deforestation and savanna burning

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 51: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Coal-fired power Methane, deforestation

and savanna burningfrom livestock

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

258 mt180 mt

Annual CO2-e emissions from National Greenhouse Inventory 2008

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Amended for 20 year GWP and now including deforestation and savanna burning

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 52: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Passenger vehicles

Livestock excl. exports

258 mt180 mt

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

258 mt43 mt

Source: Vehicle emissions from Brook, Prof. Barry and Russell, Geoff, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”, Australasian Science, Nov/Dec

2007, pp. 37- 39, http://www.control.com.au/bi2007/2810Brook.pdf (accessed 27 June, 2010)

Livestock production of 98 mt represents an estimate of domestic consumption, using beef as an indicator. 62% of beef is

exported. Emissions from all livestock are 258 mt x 38% = 98 mt. Source: http://www.mla.com.au/About-the-red-meat-

industry/Industry-overview/Cattle# accessed 3 April, 2011.

What’s better,giving up your car or giving up meat?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

98 mt excl.

exports43 mt

Exports 62% of 258 mt = 160 mt

Based on 20 year GWP and including deforestation and savanna burning

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 53: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Land Clearing

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 54: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Land Clearing

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 55: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Land Clearing in Australia

Total area cleared since European settlement almost 1 million sq. km.

Approx. 70% or almost 700,000 sq km (9% of Australia’s land area) is due to livestock.

Cleared native vegetation and protected areas

Cleared native vegetation

Native vegetation

Protected areas

Sources: Map - National Biodiversity Strategy Review Task Group, “Australia’s

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2020”, Figure A10.1, p. 91Other figures derived from Russell, G. “The global food system and climate

change – Part 1”, 9 Oct 2008, www.bravenewclimate.com, which utilised:

Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,

State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and

area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and

ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; andABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops

Livestock

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 56: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Land clearing in Australia – Queensland 1988 -2008

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

• 8.6 million hectares (86,000 sq km) cleared in Queensland

over 20 years from 1988 to 2008.

• 91% was for livestock pasture.

• If we drew a line 10km east from Melbourne’s CBD, it would almost reach Balwyn Rd, Balwyn.

• If we assumed that all the land north of that line was forest, how far would we go if we were to clear as much land as was

cleared in Queensland for livestock grazing between 1988 and 2008? (See next two slides.)

Source:

First two points from Bisshop, G. & Pavlidis, L, “Deforestation and land degradation in Queensland - The culprit”, Article 5,

16th Biennial Australian Association for Environmental Education Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 26-

30 September 2010

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 57: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Land clearing in Australia – Queensland 1988 -2008

Original Map: Copyright 2010 Melway Publishing Pty Ltd. Reproduced from Melway Edition 38 with permission.

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

10 km

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 58: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Livestock

Land clearing in Australia – Queensland 1988 -2008Approximately 78,000 square kilometres

Ineff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

20 years of land clearing

And that’s just Queensland!

Source:

Derived from Bisshop, G. & Pavlidis, L, “Deforestation and land

degradation in Queensland - The culprit”, Article 5, 16th Biennial Australian

Association for Environmental Education Conference, Australian National

University, Canberra,

26-30 September 2010

Original map: www.street-directory.com.au. Used with permission.

(Cairns inserted by this presenter.)

Cairns

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 59: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Sources: Sankaran, M; Hanan, N.P.; Scholes, R.J.; Ratnam, J; Augustine, D.J.; Cade, B.S.; Gignoux, J; Higgins, S.I.; Le Roux, X; Ludwig, F; Ardo, J.;

Banyikwa, F; Bronn, A; Bucini, G; Caylor, K.K.; Coughenour, M.B.; Diouf, A; Ekaya, W; Feral, C.J.; February, E.C.; Frost, P.G.H.; Hiernaux, P; Hrabar, H; Metzger, K.L.; Prins, H.H.T.; Ringrose, S; Sea, W; Tews, J; Worden, J; & Zambatis, N., “Determinants of woody cover in

African savannas”, Nature 438, 846-849 (8 December 2005), cited in Russell, G. “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 2)”, www.bravenewclimate.com

MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/

Rainforest destruction in Africa

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

The vertical lines primarily represent the Guinea Savanna, which was once forest and is maintained as savanna through regular burning, primarily to enable cattle grazing.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 60: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Rainforest destruction in Africa

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

The vertical lines primarily represent the Guinea Savanna, which was once forest and is maintained as savanna through regular burning, primarily to enable cattle grazing.

Sources: Sankaran, M; Hanan, N.P.; Scholes, R.J.; Ratnam, J; Augustine, D.J.; Cade, B.S.; Gignoux, J; Higgins, S.I.; Le Roux, X; Ludwig, F; Ardo, J.;

Banyikwa, F; Bronn, A; Bucini, G; Caylor, K.K.; Coughenour, M.B.; Diouf, A; Ekaya, W; Feral, C.J.; February, E.C.; Frost, P.G.H.; Hiernaux, P; Hrabar, H; Metzger, K.L.; Prins, H.H.T.; Ringrose, S; Sea, W; Tews, J; Worden, J; & Zambatis, N., “Determinants of woody cover in

African savannas”, Nature 438, 846-849 (8 December 2005), cited in Russell, G. “Burning the biosphere, boverty blues (Part 2)”, www.bravenewclimate.com

MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 61: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Rainforest destruction in South America

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_map.html

http://www.world-maps.co.uk/continent-map-of-south-america.htm

MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/

Black carbon information: Presentation by Gerard Bisshop, World Preservation Fund presentation to Cancun Climate

Summit, Dec, 2010 “Shorter lived climate forcers: Agriculture Sector and Land Clearing for Livestock” (co-authors Lefkothea Pavlidis and Dr Hsien Hui Khoo)

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is occupied by livestock pastures, and livestock feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder (United Nations Food & Agriculture

Organization, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, 2006)

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 62: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Rainforest destruction in South America

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_map.html

http://www.world-maps.co.uk/continent-map-of-south-america.htm

MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA Goddard Space Flight

Center - http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/

Winds transport black carbon from the Amazon to the Antarctic Peninsula.

47% to 61% of black carbon in Antarctica comes from pasture management in the Amazon and Africa.

Black carbon information: Presentation by Gerard Bisshop, World Preservation Fund presentation to Cancun Climate

Summit, Dec, 2010 “Shorter lived climate forcers: Agriculture Sector and Land Clearing for Livestock” (co-authors Lefkothea Pavlidis and Dr Hsien Hui Khoo)

Black carbon melts ice rapidly by

absorbing heat from sunlight.

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 63: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

James Hansen – Essential Measures

1. End coal-fired power.

2. Massive reforestation.

3. Significantly reduce non-CO2 forcings, e.g. methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon.

Hansen says a CO2 target of <350ppm won’t solve the problem without measure 3.

A key factor in reducing CO2 concentrations will be measure 2.

Not possible without addressing animal agriculture

Not possible without addressing animal agriculture

Required to reduce CO2 concentrations to < 350 ppm (currently 390 ppm approx.)

Source: Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.;

and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 64: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Water Consumption - Victoria

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Water Account, Australia, 2004-05, 4610.0, Media Release 112/2006, November 28, 2006

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Water Use on Australian Farms, 2004-05, 4618.0

34.26%

8.10%

5.24%

1.98%

15.89%

31.47%

2.28%

Dairy Farming

Other Agriculture, incl. beef & sheep

Services to Agricuture

Forestry & Fishing

Mining

Manufacturing

Electricity & Gas

Water supply

Other industries

Household

Animalagricultureexcl. dairy17%

Dairyfarming (incl. flood irrigation of pasture)34.26%

Plantbasedagriculture14%

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 65: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Water Consumption – Murray Darling Basin

Source: Russell, G. “Water for cattle”, Letters to the Editor, New Scientist Print Edition, 7 July, 2007, Issue 2611, p. 21, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526111.300-water-for-cattle.html including reference to

Bryan, B & Marvanek, S, “Quantifying and valuing land use change for Integrated CatchmentManagement evaluation in the Murray-Darling Basin 1996/97-2000/01. Stage 2 Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission” , CSIRO Land and Water, Nov, 2004

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Other 65%

Dairyfarming 35%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Gig

alitr

es

MurrayDarlingDairy4,200 GL

Aust Towns &Cities2,300 GL

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 66: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Comparative water savings per annum(‘000 litres)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Vegetarian Diet (no

meat or milk

products)

Stage 3 Savings 3 Star Show erhead

& 4 Minute Show ers

Source: Derived from Ian Rutherfurd, School of Social and Environmental Enquiry, University of Melbourne, Amelia

Tsang and Siao Khee Tan, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne (2007) “City people eat rivers: estimating the virtual water consumed by people in a large Australian city”

Livestock

1 year on a vegan diet 45 years of 4 min., 3 star showers=

Ineff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrit ion

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 67: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Nutrition – Meat & Livestock Australia“Five essential ingredients in one amazing food”

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

He’s handsome, charismatic and intelligent. Unfortunately, we’re not so

sure about Sam.

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 68: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Nutrition

Food Amino Acid

(Protein) Score

Completeness

Score

Trout 148 48

Beef 144 29

Pork 136 36

Chicken 136 32

Spinach 120 93

Soybeans 118 52

Potato 109 52

Tofu 107 49

Quinoa 106 45

Cauliflower 102 74

Lentils 86 58

Broccoli 83 92

Rice 71 27

Walnuts 55 26

Almonds 54 42

Legend:

Animal-based

Plant-based

Note:

An Amino Acid Score of 100 or more indicates a complete or high-quality protein.

Source: Self Nutrition Data, http://nutritiondata.self.com/. (Derived from USDA Nutritional database for standard reference.)

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 69: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Beef Soy Wheat Rice Potato

Protein (g) per hectare

GHG per hectare

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Beef Soy Wheat Rice Potato

Soy provides 12 times the protein of

beef per hectare . . .

. . . for one-seventh of the emissions.

Livestock

Source: Mahony, P, “Some Environmental Impacts of Animal Agriculture, Part 2”, updated Dec, 2010,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1097247/bccag/images/animals2.pdf and Mahony, P for Vegetarian Network Victoria “Submission in Response

to Victorian State Government’s Climate Change Green Paper”, Sep 2009,

http://www.vnv.org.au/site/files/submission090921climatechangegreenpaper.pdf

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 70: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Beef Soy Wheat Rice Potato

Protein (g) per hectare

Soy provides 12 times the protein of beef per hectare . . .

Water per hectare

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

Beef Soy Wheat Rice Potato

. . . for one-third of the water.

Livestock

Source: Mahony, P, “Some Environmental Impacts of Animal Agriculture, Part 2”, updated Dec, 2010,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1097247/bccag/images/animals2.pdf and Mahony, P for Vegetarian Network Victoria “Submission in Response

to Victorian State Government’s Climate Change Green Paper”, Sep 2009,

http://www.vnv.org.au/site/files/submission090921climatechangegreenpaper.pdf

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 71: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

LivestockIneff iciency

Scale

GHGs

Deforestation

Water

Nutrition

What about Vitamin B12?

• One source is bacteria which can be found in soil and in the digestive systems of some animals.

• B12 analogues are found in certain fungi and algae, although not always beneficial to humans.

• It can also be produced directly from bacteria as a dietary supplement.

• That is a more natural approach than destroying natural environments and killing livestock.

Similar results for iron, zinc, calcium, omega-3 (ALA) and energy

See:

http://animalliberation.org.au/blog/98-vitamin-b12-fuss.html (Russell, G.)

http://www.vegetarianvictoria.org.au/cms/infosheets/9veganismandvitaminb12.pdf (Ogilvie, D.)

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 72: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Other issues- Fish:

- Ocean habitats are being destroyed by industrial fishing.

- 36% - 50% of the global catch is fed to livestock.

- Pigs & chickens eat 6 times as much seafood as Americans.

- Kangaroo: Difficult to farm and insufficient yield for mass consumption.

- Chicken: See above re seafood. Also corn and nitrogen-based fertilizer contributing to oceanic dead zones. Also inherently inefficient relative to a plant-based diet.

- Dairy: Is it natural? We are the only species that consumes the milk of other species, and the only one that consumes milk beyond a young age.

- Vested interests

- Environmental groups

- Political expediency

- Aid agencies promoting livestock donations

- Cultural and social conditioning, blind spots and blinkers

Livestock

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 73: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Other issues- Fish:

- Ocean habitats are being destroyed by industrial fishing.

- 36% - 50% of the global catch is fed to livestock.

- Pigs & chickens eat 6 times as much seafood as Americans.

- Kangaroo: Difficult to farm and insufficient yield for mass consumption.

- Chicken: See above re seafood. Also corn and nitrogen-based fertilizer contributing to oceanic dead zones. Also inherently inefficient relative to a plant-based diet.

- Dairy: Is it natural? We are the only species that consumes the milk of other species, and the only one that consumes milk beyond a young age.

- Vested interests

- Environmental groups

- Political expediency

- Aid agencies promoting livestock donations

- Cultural and social conditioning, blind spots and blinkers

Livestock

BUT IT’S

AN E

MERGENCY!

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 74: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

What can we do?

Corporations:

- Modify dining and entertaining practices.

Individuals:

- Consume fewer livestock products.

- Inform others.

Environmental Groups:

- Make animal agriculture a high priority.

Governments:

- Utilise pricing factors, e.g. carbon tax.

- Inform the community.

- Modify dining and entertaining practices.

Livestock

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 75: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Do you have to miss out on delicious food?

Not at all.

See:www.veganeasy.org

www.vegetarianvictoria.org.au/recipes.htmlwww.vegetarianvictoria.org.au/healthy-living/healthy-living.html

Livestock

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 76: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Review of key messages - General

Human activity is having a massive impact

Climate change is real

Review of key messages – Livestock

Inherent inefficiency

Scale

Greenhouse gases and other warming agents

Deforestation

Nutrition

Livestock needs to be part of the main game

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011

Page 77: Solar Or Soy: Which is better for the planet? (A review of animal agriculture's impact)

Concluding message

Source: Ann Druyan, co-author with late husband Carl Sagan of “Shadows of forgotten ancestors” interviewed on Late Night

Live, ABC Radio National, Australia, 13 Dec, 2007

• “ . . . if we could recognise who we

really are

• rather than beings who were

magically and separately created from

the rest of nature,

• and if we could come to grips with that

reality,

• then maybe we could be aroused from

the stupor that we find ourselves in

and begin to save ourselves."

Paul M

ahon

y 2

011